It has been 13 years since the last Re-Animator film, but Dr Herbert
West is still as nutty as ever.

Jeffrey Coombs is back as the
unemotional, deadpan scientist who is obsessed with bringing the
dead back to life. Except for a few crow's feet, Coombs is right
back into the character he created in 1985. The writer even made the
time-lapse make sense, because the story takes place 13 years after
the last chapter, during which time Dr. West has been in prison, and
the little boy who witnessed the end of the last film has grown up
to be a doctor himself, deliberately asking for the assignment as
prison medic in West's jail.

In the intervening years, the Mad
Doctor has been devising a scheme to add some new features to his
formula for reviving the dead, the most important innovation being
that the dead should now come back as reasonable people, and not as
frenetic flesh-chewing zombies, because West has found a way to
re-capture the human soul after it leaves the body.

Well, of course, that would be no
fun, so Dr West has to screw it up somehow, which he does by
constantly robbing from Peter to pay Paul in his budget-priced experiments, a
process which eventually forces him to use a rat's soul on a human,
and ...

... and I think you can
probably figure out the rest.

It just keeps getting sillier and
sillier.

NUDITY REPORT

Raquel Gribler shows her breasts when a maniac
rips off her nurse uniform.

Elsa Pataky
shows her breasts and offers a long distance look at her buns,
in a sex scene.

director commentary (not good,
just a recitation of what we can see for ourselves

"Making of" featurette with
several cast interviews

music video.

This series has always been
over-the-top camp, and this one is out there in the same territory.
The prison and its warden are in the mode of Dickens-meets-Dr
Strangelove, the resuscitated zombies chew more scenery than flesh,
limbs are ripped off casually, blood gushes everywhere and the final
prison break has the same chaotic energy as the one in Natural Born
Killers, except that also it tosses in a few zombies with missing
limbs.

I can't say that splatter comedy is
really my thing, but I have to admit I laughed quite a few times in
this film, especially at the mock gravitas Coombs imparted to all of
his lines. If you want to see a horror movie, take a pass, because
this one makes no real attempt to go for any real scares or a dark
horror tone. It's strictly for gross laughs, and it does deliver
some imaginative nonsense.

The
Critics Vote ...

No major reviews online

The People
Vote ...

IMDB summary.
IMDb voters score it 6.5/10. That will drop. It
probably should be about 5.5.

The meaning of the IMDb
score: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence equivalent to about three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, comparable to approximately two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, equivalent to about a two star rating from the critics,
or a C- from our system.
Films rated below five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film - this score is roughly equivalent to one
and a half stars from the critics or a D on our scale. (Possibly even less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is.

My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. (C+ means it has no crossover appeal, but
will be considered excellent by genre fans, while
C- indicates that it we found it to
be a poor movie although genre addicts find it watchable). D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well. Any film rated C- or better is recommended for
fans of that type of film. Any film rated B- or better is
recommended for just about anyone. We don't score films below C-
that often, because we like movies and we think that most of
them have at least a solid niche audience. Now that you know
that, you should have serious reservations about any movie below
C-.

Based on this description, this is a C. Not a
genre masterpiece, like the first one, but a pretty good sequel.
The ending promises another one as well.